Stephenson v. Connecticut

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

January 8, 2018

JOSEPH STEPHENSON, Petitioner,v.CONNECTICUT, Respondent.

RULING AND ORDER

Robert
N. Chatigny United States District Judge

Petitioner
was convicted in state court of robbery in the third degree
and two counts of larceny in the fifth degree. After the
judgment was affirmed on appeal he brought this habeas case
raising various claims. The claims were dismissed on the
merits and petitioner's request for leave to amend his
petition to add new claims was denied on the ground that the
new claims were procedurally defaulted. The Court of Appeals
has remanded for a determination of whether the new claims,
although procedurally defaulted, can be adjudicated on the
merits based on petitioner's claim that he is actually
innocent of third degree robbery. After considering
petitioner's evidence of actual innocence in light of the
evidence in the record as a whole, I conclude that he has not
met his burden of establishing a credible, compelling claim
of actual innocence and therefore dismiss the petition.

On August 23, 2006, at approximately 1 p.m., Donovan
Sinclair, a store detective for the Macy's department
store in the Stamford Town Center Mall, received notice
regarding a suspicious individual in the Polo department at
the store. Sinclair then observed, on the security camera, an
individual later identified as the defendant in the Polo
department. The defendant was carrying a white shopping bag
under his arm and was picking out a variety of items.
Sinclair monitored the defendant for approximately forty-five
minutes and observed him taking items of clothing from the
racks, folding them and bending down as if putting the items
into the bag. The defendant appeared nervous and was looking
around. Although Sinclair did not see a tool in the
defendant's hands, it looked like he had something in his
hands. While observing the defendant, Sinclair called upon
store manager Steve Johnson for assistance. Johnson remained
in the security office to monitor the security camera while
Sinclair followed the defendant as he exited the store. When
Sinclair reached the defendant, he identified himself as a
Macy's store detective and indicated that he wanted to
talk to the defendant about the merchandise in the bag. A
“heated argument” between Sinclair and the
defendant ensued, during which some pushing and shoving took
place. Sinclair attempted to handcuff the defendant but was
only able to get one handcuff on him. Johnson and two other
individuals from Macy's came outside and assisted
Sinclair in pinning the defendant against a wall until the
police arrived and placed the defendant in a police car. When
Sinclair returned to the store, he identified six items from
Macy's that had been recovered from the shopping bag. The
total cost of these items was $356.49. In addition to these
items, the police recovered three pairs of eyeglasses,
totaling approximately $600, from the Macy's bag. Stephen
Singer, the retail manager at a LensCrafters store in the
Stamford Town Center mall, later identified the three pairs
of eye-glasses as belonging to that store. Singer checked the
store records and determined that the eyeglasses had been
accounted for when the store had closed the night before, and
that they had not been sold by any-one at the store on August
23, 2006. Singer also re-called that the defendant had been
in the store between approximately 10:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.
that morning.

Petitioner's
claim of actual innocence derives from a letter signed by
Sinclair, the Macy's store detective. At the jury trial,
Sinclair testified that he saw petitioner leave the store
with a bag containing stolen merchandise, followed him and
asked him to stop so he could inspect the contents of the
bag. Petitioner angrily denied stealing and continued
walking. Sinclair pinned him against a fence across the
street from the store and a heated argument ensued. Trial
Transcript, Oct. 27, 2008, at 88-90 (ECF No. 78). Sinclair
noticed that petitioner had his hand “in a ball”
and asked him if he was armed. Id. at 89. Petitioner
responded that he was carrying a knife. Id. at
88-89. There was some “pushing and shoving”
because petitioner was trying to leave and Sinclair was
trying to recover the merchandise. Id. at 88, 90. If
Sinclair had been able to recover the merchandise, he would
have let petitioner leave. Id. at 90. Sinclair
attempted to calm petitioner and handcuff him for his own
safety but Sinclair was only able to get one handcuff on him
prior to the arrival of the police. Id. at 90-91.

Sinclair's
testimony that there was some pushing and shoving as he tried
to stop petitioner from leaving with the merchandise proved
to be important to the state's case. Initially,
petitioner was charged with second degree robbery, which
requires proof that the accused “display[ed] or
threaten[ed] the use of .. . a deadly weapon or a dangerous
instrument.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-135. After the
state presented its case, the trial judge granted a motion to
dismiss the second degree robbery charge but permitted the
state to proceed on a charge of third degree robbery, which
requires use or threatened use of physical
force.[1]A motion for judgment of acquittal on the
charge of third degree robbery was denied. Referring to
Sinclair's testimony, the trial judge stated that there
was evidence of “some pushing and shoving between
[Sinclair] and the defendant after Mr. Sinclair followed the
defendant outside the store.” Trial Transcript, Oct.
29, 2008, at 51-58.

The
letter that provides the genesis for petitioner's claim
of actual innocence was submitted to the state trial judge
after the trial but before petitioner's sentencing. The
lengthy letter, ostensibly written by Sinclair, makes it
appear that petitioner is innocent of all the charges and
blames the police for encouraging Sinclair to exaggerate or
lie about what happened.

With
regard to the larceny convictions, the letter explains that
the items of clothing found in the bag were not stolen. The
letter states:

I was working as a security guard for Macy's store in
Stamford when I received a call about someone acting
suspiciously. I watched [petitioner] on the camera but I did
not record everything I actually saw him do. I told the court
that I saw when [petitioner] entered the Polo department and
went to the sales counter where he took out some polo clothes
and a belt out of a bag he had brought in but then put some
of them back in the bag when he appeared that he could not
find the receipts. Even though I told the court that I later
did find some Macy's receipts in the pockets of one of
the pant [sic], I should have told them that those receipts
did match up with the clothes that were assumed stolen. I did
not mention it at the time because the police had already did
[sic] their report and I had not searched the clothes until
later on when they left. The police had also told me to
exaggerate the incident in my report. * * * Even though I saw
[petitioner] put back the clothes that he appeared to be
messing with in the vide [sic], I did not record it when he
put those clothes, including a blue and white stripe shirt
that he had folded, back on a clothing shelf before he
exited. I only went outside to apprehend him just to check
the bag. I could not see what he was doing behind the
clothing rack in the store so I just wanted to check him out.
It was only when he argued with me outside on the street and
said he would sue me that I became very angry and went along
with the police. I was worried about my job at the time and
wanted to make sure that the man would be convicted. I was
later let go from Macy[‘s] as a result of this and
another incident because Macy's did not want to get sued
for mistaken arrests.

With
regard to the third degree robbery conviction, the letter
states:

I admit now that the man did not touch me in any way at all.
In fact it was I that pushed and shoved him against the fence
across from the store. He only pulled his hand away so I
could not handcuff him properly. He gave me the bag he had
when I asked for it and I thought the Jury would understand
that there was only arguing involved and no force whatsoever.
Even though we had a heated argument I remember clearly that
the man did not fight with me. I feel very badly now that the
man was convicted for something that he did not do and I
cannot sleep properly knowing that I may have said something
that was taken in the wrong way and sent someone to jail.

According
to the letter, when Sinclair testified before the jury, it
was his intention “to convey the fact that there was no
fighting whatever and that it was a minor incident.”
(“I did not realize that the jury would take my
statement as seriously as they did.”).

The
letter closes with the following statement:

Please understand that nobody has asked me or pressured me to
write this letter to you but I am really bothered by the
whole incident. I have kids to take care of and even though I
may not know that man, he is somebody's child and just as
I would not like my kids to go to jail for a lie or mistake,
this is the same way I feel about what has happened here. I
hope that you will understand that I have to set the record
straight and clear my conscience. I believe that there is a
God and that we will have to give an account to him one ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.